Standing out or fitting in

(1)

Standing out or fitting in?

A qualitative approach towards how seasoned newcomers experience

organisational socialisation in a new setting

M.Sc. Managing People, Knowledge and Change School of Economics and Management ∙ Lund University

May 2014

Author: Anika Hägner (890626-T221) Supervisor: Katie Sullivan

(2)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Katie Sullivan for the useful comments, remarks and engagement through the learning process of this master thesis. Thank you for your insightful feedback and guidance.

I would also like to thank all my informants for their readiness for participation and self-disclosure. Without you, this thesis would not have been possible.

(3)

ABSTRACT

Title: Standing out or fitting in? - A qualitative approach towards how seasoned newcomers experience organisational socialisation in a new setting

Seminar Date: 3rd June 2014

Course: Master Thesis in BUSN49, Managing People,

Knowledge & Change, Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Sweden

Author: Anika Hägner

Advisor: Katie Sullivan

Keywords: Socialisation, adjustment, work experience, knowledge exchange, seasoned newcomers Thesis Purpose: My study aims to investigate how seasoned newcomers experience their organisational

socialisation during onboarding in relation to prior experience and the training into the new setting. The study examines how newcomers make sense of the interactive process of socialisation, and how these processes influence their adjustment and willingness to share expertise.

Methodology: The present study is of a qualitative nature and the material is approached through hermeneutical reading.

Theoretical Perspective: Relevant conceptualizations of socialisation, newcomer proactivity and interactional learning. Contemporary researches on the intersections between these approaches.

Empirical Foundation: The paper is based on recently hired employees’ accounts of lived experiences in socialisation and adjustment. The empirical material constitutes 12 semi-structured interviews on socialisation during onboarding.

Conclusion: Newcomer’s strategy for adjustment is to employ active strategies of information seeking through established members of the organisation. Insiders hold the power to control knowledge exchange. Insiders regulate what knowledge they share and what knowledge they take in from newcomers’ prior experiences. Newcomers react to insiders control with holding back expertise and refraining from bringing themselves in until they lost their status of being ‘new’.

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

In this project I explore how what I call ‘seasoned newcomers’ (Saks et al., 2007) experience organisational socialisation at Cranetec. Cranetec, a maritime crane production company situated in Northern Germany, is in the middle of an extensive restructuring process which includes hiring approximately 100 employees within the next year. In my first meeting with the HR director he verbalised his interest in investigating the onboarding process for new hires in the company. Hiring so many new people within such a short span of time is a mammoth project. In the conversation I expected that management would like to find out how to make it ‘more efficient’ and how to ‘speed people up to full performance’ which would have been in line with the popular literature (Taleo, 2006) which I will review below. Instead questions like “What do people like so far in their onboarding?” and “ What don’t they like?” were raised. This led me to believe that he was more interested in how people were doing rather than ‘speeding them up’.

One of the things that makes the onboarding process at Cranetec interesting to study is their attempt to hire seasoned employees, meaning people who already have occupational and industry experience. Since most literature on socialisation focuses on new or recent graduates with, I presume, little or no industry experience, I chose to have a look at experienced newcomers in the hopes of contributing to our understanding of this. The second reason is more personally related, as my dad just changed jobs and was going on about how he did not approve of a lot of things in the new company, how everything had been handled so much better before and how nobody would listen to him. This intrigued me and I wondered whether and how other seasoned newcomers would deal with this situation of having all this expertise but nowhere to put it.

1.2. Purpose

The socialisation literature is vast and there are many different ways to go on about the topic. So far there has not been a united framework. Much of the literature is quantitative and deals primarily with correlations between abstract socialisation tactics and managerialist outcomes as ‘speeding newcomers up to full performance’. I feel there is a lack of answering how socialisation happens and go beyond a psychological perspective. What is the actual process like according to those who experience it? Most studies focus a lot on input and output and neglect what is actually happing. Not to mention that the list of limitations is sometimes

(7)

1. Introduction

7 longer than the findings section. Adkins (1995) admits that socialisation variables are hard to measure quantitatively. Therefore I see a considerable need for qualitative approaches towards this issue.

Organisations hire new employees all the time. However, nowadays people change their job more often (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2012) and therefore come into new organisations with a bag of experiences. Most of the research focused on ‘neophyte’ workers (graduates), who are not only new to the organisation, but the occupation in general. Little is known about how experienced workers undergo the socialisation process (Carr et al., 2006). It has just started to be acknowledged in research (Carr et al., 2006) that there is likely to be a difference in adjusting graduates and experienced newcomers and organisations need to prepare for that.

1.3. Research Question

Taking a qualitative approach towards socialisation gives me the opportunity to engage in newcomers’ subjective experiences which may disclose nuances of meaning that would probably be overlooked in a standardised framework.

My research question was led by the gap discerned in the literature and my personal interest: A) How do seasoned newcomers experience differences between before and now? B) How do seasoned newcomers experience adjusting to the new organisational

setting?

Answering these questions takes the focus from best-practice and functionalist efficiency approaches to the experience of the individual and its struggle between adjusting themselves and adjusting the new setting within the interactional process of socialisation. The research concerning both of these phenomena seems not to be well integrated and mostly looked upon in a rather separated way (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013).

I talked to newcomers who were just experiencing this process and were willing to be interviewed. To access employees’ accounts on their experiences I conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve newcomers who underwent their onboarding at that time. Through these interviews I was able to gain access to their sense-making1 as they shared their experiences through their stories and talked to me about how they felt about the onboarding process and included socialisation.

1_{Sensemaking is an ongoing process of retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what}

(8)

1. Introduction

8 1.4. Main Findings

My interpretations of the collected data are based on a hermeneutical reading and suggest that there is an aspect of socialisation which has been treated shabbily in academic research so far. It showed that context, especially regarding the ways in which colleagues approach newcomers, matters. My primary findings suggest that newcomer socialisation is a double-sided coin that can be productive or destructive, depending on the interaction. Newcomers receive support when seeking information that helps them fit in. However, they find resistance when they attempt to share information and bring in their personal expertise based on prior experiences that might change the status quo. The level of active participation is influenced by the socialisation context they are embedded in. This context is, however, not just ‘out there’ and approachable in a direct way, but mediated through interactions with established members of the organisation who enact the organisational informal and formal structures in their every day practices. Therefore the organisational context becomes a subjective matter based on its perception by newcomers. This results in differing practices of pro-activity.

1.5. Structure of the Paper

In Chapter 2 I outline the methodological approach of my study, my research process, the foundation for analysis, as well as the limitations and the trustworthiness of my study.

In Chapter 3 I present an overview of some relevant conceptualizations of organisational socialisation, experienced newcomers and the role of established organisational members. In addition, I introduce my analysis of the specific difficulties that come with the socialisation process and how newcomers deal with these.

In Chapter 4 I present my analysis of empirical findings. My main focus here is to understand how experienced newcomers perceived their socialisation in relation to their prior occupational experiences.

In Chapter 5, I give a general interpretation of my findings based on my data analysis and the frames of literature references. Here I will state my contribution to the discussion on socialisation of experienced newcomers.

In Chapter 6 I draw a conclusion from my study and addresses recommendations for future research on experienced newcomer socialisation and adjustment practices.

(9)

2. METHODOLOGY

This study takes a qualitative approach to contribute to a deeper understanding of the newcomers’ experiences during onboarding. As social research is strongly influenced by its theoretical and methodological frameworks, I will make my standpoint clear in the following. My study is informed by the ontological understanding that reality is not naturally given, but socially constructed and interpreted by subjects, who are embedded in a social context and interactions with other subjects (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). The underlying epistemology regards the knowledge about ‘what is’ (ontology) as being subjective and mediated. It is created by learning or experience and shared through communication, e.g. language. This indicates that there is no such thing as objective facts which can be picked up by the researcher.

Following from these paradigmatic assumptions I chose an interpretive approach, focusing on how experienced newcomers make sense of the onboarding process. I conducted semi-structured interviews, which facilitated a reasonably free-floating talk that revealed deep feelings and attitudes.

I used hermeneutics for the data analysis, as I believe the researcher’s motivation to study an issue is based on premises within our experiences and theoretical knowledge that one has gathered in the past and therefore cannot be based on any form of neutrality. Hermeneutics, a method of text interpretation, aims to reveal the essential meaning of phenomena through a dialectic movement between understanding and explanation (Lindseth & Norberg, 2004). Taking an abductive approach my research intent is based on pre-understanding and thorough literature review (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). I aim to develop new knowledge about the socialisation and onboarding process to disclose what has been taken for granted so far.

2.1. Sample

The research was conducted at Cranetec2, a large production company situated in Northern Germany. I chose this company due to the vast restructuring process it is going through at the moment. This promised interesting conditions for research, since a lot of new employees are hired and thus making onboarding a crucial topic.

(10)

2. Methodology

10 2.1.1. CASE DESCRIPTION –CRANETEC

The family owned firm Cranetec by now has grown to a group of firms with almost 39.600 employees in over 130 associated companies on all continents. The holding company’s shareholders are exclusively members of the family. The decentralised firm is organized in manageable, independently operating corporate units.

The production site in Northern Germany was founded in 2002 and is part of the Cranetec line. It has been operating since 2005. By now the company has about 1480 employees (2014).

Within six years Crantec will be developed from a construction site into the maritime center of the firm group, including the establishment of a new construction and development, sales, customer service and marketing unit. At the time of my study 117 newcomers were hired already for the departments to be established. The medium-dated staff requirement will exceed this number. The change process is scheduled to be complete in 2018. There was no unified onboarding process so all newcomers had differing experiences how their onboarding was processed.

Because the production site in Northern Germany was still dependent on its sibling in Austria, most of the newcomers were sent ‘down there’ to learn the ropes. Newcomers voiced their motivation to ‘experience something new’ and showed high motivation to bring themselves in. Regardless of their prior working experience newcomers were curios to find out how things were handled the ‘Cranetec way’. Participants were aware of entering a new and partially unknown context. Comparing their prior experiences in other companies with their new employer they sometimes found themselves in a tension between adjusting or trying to shape the new setting.

2.1.2. INTERVIEWEES –SEASONED NEWCOMERS

I interviewed twelve employees over the course of a two-month period. The sample was drawn from Cranetec. Participants were all engaged in the induction process or had just finished it. Interviews typically lasted from 45 to 60 minutes. My choice of sample was led by judgement sampling (Marshall, 1996), which in this case suggests interviewing people who are going through the onboarding process at the moment and could therefore contribute best to the study. Also I checked for people already having some experience in the labour market and therefore the possibility to make comparisons to former working experiences. This is important as experienced newcomers are different from graduates undergoing onboarding and

(11)

2. Methodology

11 my research question focuses on these specifically. Participants were chosen on the basis of the following five criteria:

- has more than 12 month of work experience outside current organisation - has not worked for Cranetec before

- duration of membership in Cranetec of at least 3 months and at the most 14 months (enough experience to share while being able to remember)

- was accessible at the moment of the study

I interviewed three people selected by the personnel officers from each of the four main departments: business administration, production, construction and sales. Interviewees were selected from all four departments to show a variety of socialisation settings, as different “occupational groups may have specific cultures and generate different discourses that constitute the socialisation experience” (Barge & Schlueter, 2004).

The respondents had different levels of prior occupational experience ranging from one to 18 years. Participants’ age varied between 29 and 50 years. There were two female respondents. Age and gender were neglected in the study as the misbalance would not allow for making any connected assumptions.

I assured participants of confidentiality and no respondent was required to participate. Fortunately all employees I approached agreed to participate in the study.

2.2. Data Collection

I collected my data through semi-structured interviews. The interviews gave me the opportunity to get to know the employees’ stories, which can express their experiences, feelings and insights and help to reveal the underlying meaning of organisational socialisation during the onboarding process.

The interview questions were held as open as possible to motivate a free-floating conversation, which is more likely to disclose deeper feelings and truthful answers. However, I was aware that language rather constructs than mirrors a phenomenon and that narratives cannot be taken for granted (Alvesson, 2003). I used my observational notes and documents I was given (welcome brochures, onboarding schedules) to nurture a deeper understanding of the situational setting and a thick context for the analysis and interpretations.

(12)

2. Methodology

12 I conducted all interviews in German. They were type-recorded with permission of the interviewee and transcribed afterwards. I translated relevant parts of the data into English to be used in the research report.

Participants of the study were first approached by the HR department via e-mail. Here they were informed of my study, the overall topic and the possibility to participate. After that I called each potential interviewee in order to schedule an appointment. I conducted ten interviews personally in conference rooms but as two participants were in Austria at that time, I did video interviews with them3.

I began each interview with broad questions to warm up and encourage the interviewee to narrate freely about their professional life before and with Cranetec. “What did you do before you came to Cranetec?” or “What was the onboarding process like?”, “How did you like it?” etc. As the interview progressed I asked for clarification of specific terms or topics. The question leading the conversations was “How did you experience the onboarding process?”. The question was deliberately broad to cover as many aspects of the issue as possible and encourage sense-making from the interviewee’s side. I took notes during the interviews to clarify my understanding of how participants talked about their experiences.

In order to gain participants’ trust I explained the purpose of my study thoroughly and gave them the opportunity to ask questions. However, I noticed that they were aware of the interview situation and the fact that they were being recorded. This showed in some interviews where as soon as the recorder was turned off more delicate information was shared. All in all, the participants were very friendly and seemed open and willing to help me with my study. Despite my close connection to the HR department and them still being on probation, they were also open to share critical thoughts on their induction and frustration with certain procedures.

2.3. Data Analysis

The semi-structured interview as a technique for interpretive data collection recognises the interview situation as an interactional act constituting an arena for negotiating meaning and understanding (Witzel & Reiter, 2012). Therefore I adopted an interpretive perspective to data analysis, aiming to understand the experience the newcomer gained during the onboarding process. The analysis was based on a hermeneutic approach and contained iteration through

3_{As the video conference system offers real-time interaction and live video, I did not feel that the situation} differed from a face-to-face interaction.

(13)

2. Methodology

13 the data. I intended to study the meaning of socialisation during the onboarding process in its expression through narratives and reflections. I chose alethic hermeneutics as my technique of analysis. That is to say my understanding is marked by interpretation and preconception and puts emphasis on the process of understanding rather than the outcome itself (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

The documents and observation nurtured mostly the pre-understanding and understanding of the context. For analysing the collected data I used hermeneutic circles in which I moved back and forth between my pre-understanding and my text, which constituted my “interpretive prior knowledge, which needs to be explicated and ‘controlled’” (Witzel & Reiter, 2012: 100). By engaging in a dialogue with the text I jumped from writing to reflecting. The data analysis was characterised by constant revision and iteration between my pre-conceptions, based on my academic background, my literature review and experiences I gained in the field, as well as my empirical data.

Initially I scanned the interviews for recurring keywords or phrases that seemed in the broadest sense to be related to my research question. Data collection and analysis happened simultaneously. I developed my interview framework iteratively as new insights occurred concurrently with data collection. During the analysis process I tried to suspend any judgment and put myself into the position of the interviewees. I kept asking the text questions about what it means that the interviewee answered the question this or that way (or not another way).

My next step was to form themes from meaning units, abstracted from the highlighted keywords in the interview text. I went through each text several times. With every round my understanding grew and facilitated deeper understanding of the written interview in front of me. I took my time for the analysis making sure to not miss important themes. My understanding of the topic grew with every additional case that I analysed as “every additional case is interpreted against the background of the cases before.” (Witzel & Reiter, 2012: 109). I organized the condensed themes, e.g. ‘dependence on insiders’, ‘adjusting’, ‘bringing in expertise’ ‘dealing with resistance’, into a coherent framework still mirroring my empirical material in an honest fashion. I finalised my analysis by going through my themes, my text and iterate between my findings, theoretical framework and understanding of the issue. When I felt that no new meaning was emerging and my analysis was not getting any deeper I formed a concluding draft that united my pre-understanding, theoretical framework and findings of my empirical data.

(14)

2. Methodology

14 2.4. Reliability, Reflexivity and Limitations

I had to be aware of the fact that “people tailor stories to their audience” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). I tried to explain my role as a researcher and not as HR management’s spy. Concerning authenticity, I expect that all interviewees who participated gave truthful accounts. Newcomers might still have deliberately restrained from answering in a critical way or unaware of their reactions to being asked ‘officially’ (Diefenbach, 2009) about their onboarding.

Through transcribing and especially by translating the interviews, I already constitute a form of interpretation and meaning. There are different readings of a transcript and more than one way of interpretation (Witzel & Reiter, 2012), as I conducted this study on my own there was, unfortunately, no opportunity for researcher triangulation. My interpretations are limited to my preunderstanding and theoretical reference which let me make sense of the interviewees’ accounts.

As the researcher I myself am part of the social world, I am studying (Alvesson, 2003). I cannot remove myself from the world to find ‘what really is’ (Larkin, Watts, & Clifton, 2006). My personal self is inseparable from my researcher-self (Cresswell, 2003) and my presence in the interviews may bias the interviewees’ authenticity. Additionally me being part of the company may have affected my interpretations. I tried to be open and conscious about my own biases. It is important to be aware of my preunderstanding (experience, academic curriculum) and to reflect upon its impact.

However, as new knowledge “cannot be constructed from scratch” (Patterson, 2002: 23) and any interpretation of research material without a theoretical preunderstanding would “rest on shaky grounds.” (Alvesson, 2003: 14) my preunderstanding is nothing that I will avoid. By being reflexive I take account of the research process itself, including the situational nature of knowledge, the social context, my role as a researcher and the effects of language on the knowledge creation process (Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley B., 2008).

All interviewees came from a single company, which constrains the generalizability of my statements. Due to the restructuring the company is undergoing some activities and experiences that interviewees shared might not be applicable to socialisation processes in general.

However, I believe that this unique case is very interesting and fruitful to study as it discloses aspects of socialisation that stay hidden in other settings.

(15)

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

Academic literature has paid a lot of attention to organisational socialisation in recent decades and branched out into various focus areas. The purpose of the following chapter is to introduce the reader to some valuable definitions and concepts, while focusing not only on general objectives of socialisation during the specific phase of onboarding, but specifically on the interrelation of seasoned newcomers’ prior experiences and the new organisational context which consists of organisational practices, the organisational climate and socialisation agents (Wang et al, 2014).

In my study I aim to examine seasoned newcomers’ experiences during their socialisation in a new organisational setting and how they find strategies for dealing with the perceived deviations of the new context from what they had experienced in their prior engagement. Accordingly my literature review will give a reasonable overview of the literature landscape and will then focus mainly on specifics of seasoned newcomers, characteristics of the organisational context and practices of dealing with contrast.

3.1. Wording: Onboarding and Socialisation

The thesis explores the process of onboarding. Onboarding is situated within the larger phenomenon of socialisation (Bauer, 2010) and is a practice oriented term (Ashforth & Nurmohamed, 2012) typically defined as the initial orientation process facilitating the socialisation of newcomers (Johnson & Senges, 2010). Onboarding occurs in relatively short and formally contained time periods whereas socialisation is a continuous learning process (Li, Harris, & Xie Zhitao, 2011). The literature agrees that socialisation describes the process in which the newcomer is transformed from an outsider into a functioning and participating insider (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Socialisation occurs whenever an individual crosses the boundaries between organisations or between particular groups of people within an organisation (Ashforth & Nurmohamed, 2012).

The vast literature landscape of this topic shows that there are many different ways to go on about the socialisation of newcomers, but no integrated theoretical model. Generally organisational socialisation means integrating the new employees into the present organisational pattern, while they are adjusting their individual identity (Acevedo & Yancey, 2011). The literature mostly agrees that organisational socialisation is a learning process situated at the individual, group and organisational level (Saks & Ashforth, 1997).

(16)

3. Literature Review

16 In my study I will show how important this initial phase of socialisation during onboarding is for newcomers to decide upon future practices when dealing with contrast between their experiences and the new context. Onboarding has great relevance to set the stage for successful socialisation of the newcomer.

3.2. Socialisation Objectives

Organisational socialisation is meant to teach newcomer ‘the ropes’ of a particular organisational role (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) and "how to play the political game" (Korte, 2009: 285). Successful integration should lead to role clarity, task mastery, organisational knowledge4 for learning the tasks, social integration and, last but not least, social identification (Fang, Duffy, & Shaw, 2011). Management wants the onboarding process to pass on the company culture to the new hire (Daskalaki, 2012) and “mold newcomers into acceptable and efficient members” (Hart & Miller, 2006: 295). Often there is no active participation of the newcomers in the induction process as information is passed down unilaterally. Making newcomers feel part of the community is then executed by quick fix socialisation techniques (Daskalaki, 2012) such as standardised company presentations thus neglecting its importance and value for the whole organisation (Acevedo & Yancey, 2011). Management has an idealised view on the socialisation process which is highly influenced by popular management discourse assuming that newcomers will become a part of a uniform organisational culture (Daskalaki, 2012).

Many of the companies rely on standardised, best practice induction designs (Graybill et al., 2013), where the former experience of the newcomer and his or her own preunderstanding are seldom taken into consideration. Management perceives the onboarding process as characterised by compliance, accuration and standardisation (Daskalaki, 2012). The weakness of most traditional perspectives is the assumption that organisational values and culture are something to be taught and adapted by new employees as part of the ‘cultural indoctrination’ (Graybill et al., 2013: 23), but these socialisation practices foster inauthentic behaviour and must not meet with employees subjective experience of culture in the organisation. As most of the onboarding process, including the organisational socialisation is standardised, Cable et

4

"Knowledge is multi-faceted and complex, being both situated and abstract, implicit and explicit, distributed and individual, physical and mental, developing and static, verbal and encoded." (Blackler, 1995: 1032–1033) This quote indicates the complexity of knowledge. The action of ‘knowing’ is seen as something individual which is pursued in a social context. It is assumed that implicit knowledge can be codified (e.g. by language) and hereby made explicit, and this way accessible for others (Newell et al., 2009).

(17)

17 al. (2013) warn that by not taking individuals’ strengths and experience into consideration, important talent and innovative views might be lost due to company negligence.

3.2.1. ORGANISATIONAL TACTICS

Early socialisation models focused mostly on the role of the organisation (Ashforth & Nurmohamed, 2012) to which individuals ‘become adjusted’ (Lueke & Svyantek, 2000). The main goal of preparing the onboarding process in a technical as well as in an administrative way is for the newcomer to feel welcome. Especially administrative caretaking is important to reduce the newcomer’s uncertainty and stress-level.

The organisation is responsible for feeding the newcomer with all the relevant information including all relevant knowledge of the specific job and the work setting (Carr et al., 2006) Therefore, tactics are what organisations do to socialise newcomers, so to say, shape them into knowledgeable agents acculturated to the new setting (Barge & Schlueter, 2004).

These organisational tactics can be separated into institutionalised and individualised socialisation tactics (Jones, 1986). Institutionalised tactics are collective, formal and sequential. These structured learning experience and clearly defined sequenced training activities help newcomers understand the formal guidelines, where to find resources and who to approach (Fang et al., 2011). These formal onboarding practices are said to be more effective concerning anxiety reduction than informal ones (Bauer, 2010) as Newcomers are more likely to acquire social capital being formally acquainted to a collective (Fang et al., 2011). It could be said that they set the stage for the newcomer to find orientation (Lueke & Svyantek, 2000). All in all, Ashforth et al. (1998) state that institutionalised tactics are positively related to newcomer adjustment to status quo.

Individualized socialisation, on the other hand, is defined as being informal, random and disjunctive. These tactics lead to ambiguous and unstructured socialisation experiences when role requirements and expectations are unclear. In this case the newcomer needs to be proactive and can shape his role and be more innovative (Fang et al., 2011).

However, both institutionalised and individual socialisation tactics are ends to a continuum and show us that the objectives of socialisation are twofold. On the one side, organisations require new employees to respect and emulate current practices, on the other side, organisations want newcomers to challenge and revise the way things are done (Paré & Le Maistre, 2006).

(18)

18 3.2.2. NEWCOMER PRO-ACTIVITY

In recent studies research has taken the newcomers’ active participation in socialisation more into consideration. Newcomers experience high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty which is reduced by the information they get through various communication channels, mainly through social interactions with insiders (Fang et al., 2011). Other unwelcome aspects of the new situation are stress, surprise, anxiety, confusion, awkwardness (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). The socialisation process aims to reduce anxieties on the newcomer’s side about fitting in and performing well (Fang et al., 2011).

However, the new employee is not just exposed to the organisation’s socialisation tactics. New employees’ pro-active behaviour includes information-seeking and feedback-receiving (Bauer, 2010) to reduce these feelings of anxiety and ambiguity. Referring to Cooper-Thomas et al. (2012) there are different groups of tactics the individual uses to ‘survive’ which are (1) ‘gathering’ as discovering and reflecting on information to improve understanding, (2) ‘waiting’ as to allow information to come and accept it as given as it is, and (3) ‘following’ guidance and take in advice.

As mentioned before the entry situation is characterised by high uncertainty. This can be reduced by the newcomer’s efforts to understand organisational norms and expectations (Li et al., 2011) and research the new position thoroughly (Lueke & Svyantek, 2000). Newcomers use information seeking strategies and cognitive sense-making to incorporate the organisational environments and work roles into their prior knowledge (Carr et al., 2006). Cooper-Thomas et al. (2012) depicted a number of tactics the newcomer uses in interaction with insiders to deal with uncertainties in the socialisation process. These actions of mutual development are: (1) Befriending: establish social relations, wider scope as team, (2) teaming: putting effort into being seen as a team member to demonstrate commitment and influence how co-workers view the newcomer, (3) exchanging: trading resources with colleagues for preferred roles, (4) being aware of power relations, (5) negotiating: to discuss and agree on role expectations with colleagues, (6) flattering: make colleagues feel good, encourage self-disclosure, and (7) talking: picking up information in passing.

Part of this process is relationship building. Fang et al. (2011) state that proactive networking involves socialising with people in other departments and getting to know as many as possible in other organisational sections. Through sense-making the newcomer actively engages in various communication behaviours, information seeking and feedback seeking. However,

(19)

19 personality characteristics play an important role to which extent an individual uses proactive behaviour to influence his or her access to social resources (Fang et al., 2011)

These perspectives underlie the problem of focusing too much on the newcomer and his or her pro-active behaviour and power to shape the context. Context should not be neglected in the proactive process of information seeking and relationship building (Wang et al., 2014). It is not only interesting what tactics are used by the organisation, but how newcomers perceive organisational support (Lueke & Svyantek, 2000).

3.3. Interactive Socialisation

It has recently been acknowledged that socialisation does not happen in a vacuum. Above, I have shown how scholars tend to depict socialisation as a one-way street, either as something done by the organisation or as taken up by employees. The organisation is unable to determine how socialisation occurs by using specific tactics and newcomers, no matter how proactive they are, cannot shape the socialisation process on their behalf. If at all, socialisation seems to happen in between.

Organisations face newcomers who are not passive absorbers of workplace socialisation practices, as suggested above, but are actively engaged in sense-making (Carr et al., 2006). Wippich and Jöns (2001) state that even before officially entering the new organisation an ‘anticipatory socialisation’ already starts. The newly hired employee forms expectations towards the new employer. When entering the organisation the newcomer is confronted with reality and has to deal with upcoming surprise and disappointment. During the induction phase new hires figure out strategies to deal with the gap between expectation and reality. At this stage the individual starts negotiating his or her role within the organisation. With the following integration phase the newcomer gains new experiences and skills as a result of the organisational socialisation. The progress here is highly dependent on pre-knowledge and experiences (Wippich & Jöns, 2001).

In the following I will point to specifics of ‘the newcomer’ and ‘the insider’ as parties of the interaction in which socialisation occurs (Li et al., 2011).

3.3.1. SEASONED NEWCOMERS

Due to convenient access to (under)graduate student samples most of the research focuses on ‘neophyte’ workers (graduates), who are not only new to the organisation, but new to the occupation in general (Ashforth & Nurmohamed, 2012). Little is known how seasoned

(20)

20 workers, who bring experiences and pre-understanding from prior occupations, undergo the socialisation process (Beyer & Hannah, 2002) although Zahrly and Tosi (1989) suggest that early work role adjustment is influenced by previous work experience, early organisational experience and individual personality.

Of course, all newcomers bring some kind of prior experience into the new organisational setting, but as Beyer and Hannah (2002) suggest are work- related experiences likely to have a particularly strong effect on socialisation to the new work role and setting. Applying the same findings to veteran newcomers as to neophytes would be misleading. Previous work experiences seem to affect the onboarding process of an individual (Adkins, 1995; Beyer & Hannah, 2002; Saks et al., 2007) therefore neophyte and veteran newcomers should be differentiated. Carr et al. (2006) define experienced newcomers as organisational newcomers with prior working experience in the same occupation, who are likely to draw on prior experiences in the socialisation process. In this case, socialisation can be referred to as ‘re-socialisation’ which means turning away from behavioural patterns of the former setting and adjusting to a new one (Adkins, 1995).

Carr et al. (2006) suggest that seasoned newcomers are better equipped to align their own values with the organisational values as they not only have experience in how they execute their job, but also in how to adapt to new environments and how to be successfully included. However, there is no such things as the seasoned newcomer and their socialisation is likely influenced by their total experience in an occupation and organisation and the work world in general (Saks et al., 2007).

3.3.2. ORGANISATIONAL INSIDERS AS MENTORS

Allen & McManus (1999) state that newcomers use established members actively through observation, interaction and communication. Peers are a valuable source of knowledge for newcomers who seek relevant information to gain an understanding of the relevant features of their new setting. The peer is viewed as having more wisdom and experience and is therefore used as a guide (Allen & McManus, 1999).

Organisational insiders play an important role in supporting newcomers to adjust effectively (Fang et al., 2011). Superiors can support links between newcomers and insiders through formal gatherings (Louis, 1980). Links between insiders and newcomers are beneficial as the newcomers can make more reality-based self-assessments through first-hand knowledge. Therefore access to insiders who are willing to speak “off the record” is crucial (Louis, 1980).

(21)

21 Co-workers can help newcomers learn social norms, organisational culture, task-related information and expected behaviours (Li et al., 2011) Increased interaction between insiders and newcomers such as small talk, serious discussions about one’s career or orienting newcomers to their new environment makes newcomers feel less confused about their role (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006).

Role-modelling is based on informal relationships between newcomer and established members and "(...) represent[s] an important knowledge source for the newcomer." (Filstad, 2004: 397). Supervisor and co-worker behaviours help clarifying newcomers’ conception of their work responsibilities (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). Insiders can guide to important background information (Louis, 1980) and newcomers learn critical behaviour through the interpretations provided by insiders by chatting with newcomers, training them on specific work activities and spending time with them (Li et al., 2011).

The involvement in work related activities leads to immersion into the organisation’s culture and gives the newcomer a sense of belonging and feelings of commitment (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). The interaction with established members affects the socialisation of the newcomer and what s/he learns in relation to whom s/he learns from (Filstad, 2004) Also a mentor, whether formal or informal, increases opportunities for the newcomer to connect with other members of the organisation and supports the newcomer emotionally, by appraisal, informationally and instrumentally (Allen & McManus, 1999).

However, attitudes and behaviours of insiders can be supportive or not supportive and facilitate an environment for effective or ineffective socialisation (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). I will tackle this issue later when I discuss how ‘context’ matters for the socialisation.

3.3.3. SOCIALISATION AS A LEARNING PROCESS

Filstad (2004) emphasises the importance to look at organisational onboarding as individual, social and cultural learning not only teaching technical skills. Knowledge is shared among the participants, as part of everyday experiences. Research should go "away from a view of learning as the accumulation of discrete skills and context-free knowledge toward a view of learning as the gradually increasing ability to participate in socially situated, collaborative practices"(Paré & Le Maistre, 2006: 365). This acknowledges the gradual transformation of neophyte into experienced practitioner and the newcomer’s authentic but not critical participation in the workplace practice, which are the basis for collaborative actions and are reproduced in everyday activities (Romme et al., 2012).

(22)

22 Peer mentoring is positively related to socialisation-related learning (Slaughter & Zickar Michael J., 2006). As these relationships facilitate the exchange of information, and therevy newcomer’s perceptions and interpretations, sanctions against information sharing among organisational members are counterproductive for newcomers’ sense-making (Louis, 1980). Of course, newcomers use non-interpersonal sources, e.g. written material and data bases and experimentation (Ostroff & Kozloweski, 1993). Not all information required can be observed in others. Newcomers also have to trust themselves and make their own experiences. Learning by experience is very important so that newcomers find their own way of doing things. Newcomers need to gain their own experiences in order to develop tacit knowledge. This includes letting the newcomer be new (Filstad, 2004).

The transformation into an established organisational member occurs through active participation in the community’s professional activities (Paré & Le Maistre, 2006). Expertise is not gained as a single individual’s property through one-sided knowledge transmission, but workplace learning within the collaborative relationships. This suggests that both parties will gain knowledge and understanding. Learning during the socialisation process is based on reciprocity, which means conditions that lead to a mutually advantageous induction extending the capacities of both individual and organisation. However, this can only be facilitated by an open community to give newcomers space and opportunities to learn (Paré & Le Maistre, 2006).

3.4. Context Matters: Leave, Negotiate or Accept

A recent study by Wang et al. (2014) claims that context matters a lot. They emphasise that "[n]ewcomer socialisation is a process during which the newcomer interacts with the new environment." (Wang et al., 2014: 16). The newcomer adjustment takes place within the socialisation context. “[I]t is the newness of the ‘change to’ situation that requires adjustment” whether due to pleasant or unpleasant surprise (Louis, 1980: 235).

Lueke and Svyantek (2000) claim that “[w]hen a newcomer enters an organization, assumptions and observations about the similarities and differences between the new and old settings are made. The experience of a newcomer to an organization involves both surprise and sense making.” (p. 386). Experienced workers actively participate in sense-making, seeking to maintain and enact their personal identity (Carr et al., 2006).

Therefore entering an organisational setting involves substantial (inter-)personal adjustment (Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). Understanding of actors, actions and situations is continuously

(23)

23 updated. In the meaning creation (sense-making) individuals rely on a number of inputs (past experiences, general personal characteristics, cultural assumptions and interpretive schemes) (Louis, 1980). There seems to be a continuum between adaption and pushing boundaries (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2012) that newcomers have to manage.

Holton (1996) suggests that veteran newcomers are more likely to seek to change their job environment than neophytes, because for them unlearning the lessons learned in their prior organisational entry is the hardest stage. Beyer and Hannah (2002) revealed in a qualitative study that newcomers past experiences affected their adjustment to a new working environment through personal tactics they had learned for managing change situations. This implicates that socialisation is not an end in itself, but prepares the employee to best serve the organisational goals. This must not be via adaption and adjustment but also by using their experience for improvement and giving them room to develop and be “their best selves” (Cable et al., 2013). Wang et al. (2014) claim that this room can be looked upon as the context consisting of formal organisational practices, climate5 (e.g. for innovation or cooperation) and ‘socialisation agents’ (e.g. superiors and co-workers) have an impact not only on socialisation content, but the actual process as well.

3.5. Summary and Theoretical Analysis

“In order to understand the processes by which newcomers cope with entry and socialization experiences, we must first understand that experience.” (Louis, 1980: 235) Empirical studies following Van Maanen and Schein (1979) on socialisation have been conducted since 1980, but mainly in psychology-based literature (Antonacopoulou & Güttel, 2010) focusing on quantitative data to conclude with directed causalities. These quantitative studies most often examine distal outcomes of the socialisation process, e.g. job satisfaction, organisational commitment, performance, and turnover (Bauer et al., 2007), but not the process and its complexity itself.

5

“Climate is defined as a perceptually based description of what the organization is like in terms of practices, policies, procedures, and routines while culture helps define the underlying reasons and mechanisms for why these things occur in an organization based on fundamental ideologies, assumptions, values, and artifacts.” (Ostroff et al., 2003: 565)

(24)

24 These results are strongly managerial oriented and mainly used to make assumptions about the effectiveness of specific variables in the onboarding process (Bauer, 2010), but do not lead to a deeper understanding of how and why. The meaning of these ‘factors’ to the individual stays hidden.

Even though there has been a vast amount of articles being written and studies conducted within the topic of organisational socialisation, they often take a rather functionalist stance and look for potential of improvement or correlations rather than deep understanding. Korte (2009) emphasises the need for further investigation on the experience of the individual and its responsibility to take action within the socialisation process. This lack of qualitative studies dealing with the topic of onboarding and socialisation points to a major gap in understanding the experiences of job changers undergoing another onboarding process and adapting to a new organisational setting while trying to align their own expectations, experiences and identity to the new conditions.

More recent research focuses on the individual with his or her individual experiences and shows that newcomers are not all green, but knowledgeable and sophisticated (Stephens & Dailey, 2012). Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) point to the need for further research investigating on the pre-entry experiences of newcomers and their pro-active behaviour within the onboarding process. Daskalaki (2012) suggests that "(...) induction could be reconceptualised as a process that enhances knowledge sharing, challenges dominant assumptions, and allows individuality and creativity to guide organisational change and development." (p. 107). Therefore adjustment should be embedded in new frameworks based on diversity, sophistication and dialogue. Also a change of perspective towards socialisation within interactions between newcomers, co-workers and managers suggests an understanding of learning based on mutual sense-making in contrast to standardised one-way communication (Korte, 2009).

As Wang et al. (2014) suggest it should be acknowledged that “Newcomers provide fresh perspectives to the organizations and play a crucial role in determining the future development of the organizations.” (p. 15) However, it is neither the newcomer nor the organisations who determines how socialisation occurs. Focusing on one-sided learning does not pay the actual complexity of socialisation justice. Rather it needs to be acknowledged how the multi-faceted context of socialisation enables and restrains practices the newcomer develops to deal with discrepancies between their experience and the new organisational setting.

(25)

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

In this chapter I will outline my empirical findings and analyse them by taking an interpretative approach. My main focus was to understand how seasoned newcomers6 experience their socialisation in relation to their prior knowledge during the onboarding process at Cranetec. How did interviewees talk about getting to know the new setting and deal with tensions between their former work experiences and the new work setting?

My analysis chapter is structured around the main finding that (1) the knowledge exchange during the onboarding phase is controlled by co-workers. Co-workers act as gatekeepers for (a) giving access to internal knowledge and (b) possibilities for bringing external knowledge into the organisation. Newcomers experience their onboarding process in the tension of adjusting to the new context while attempting to bring in their prior experiences. In respond to co-workers acting as gatekeepers (2) newcomers (a) hold back expertise. Yet, (b) after a certain time ‘newcomers’ become pro-active and seek to change their environment.

4.1. Are Seasoned Newcomers just as ‘Green’?

Regardless of their prior experiences newcomers were curious to find out how things were handled the ‘Cranetec way’. Participants were aware of entering a new and partially unknown context. They showed high motivation and gratefulness for getting the opportunity to become part of a new organisation.

Nevertheless, when transitioning to a new organisation seasoned newcomers naturally start to compare before and now. Participants in this study pointed out several salient differences between their prior organisation and Cranetec such as working procedures, social interactions or cultural aspects. When differences are identified newcomers will evaluate which option seems superior to them and either take it in or try to change the new setting.

Adjustment was less related to the actual job and the technical skills, but more to the new context in which the actual work is embedded. Newcomers feel quite secure about doing their work, but feel that the new setting deviates from what they were used to. When I asked newcomers whether it was a big reorientation for them to come to a new company, they often told me that the actual job is the same or similar at least, but “everything around the actual work that was a huge readjustment” (Hoffmann).

(26)

4. Empirical Findings and Data Analysis

26 Seasoned newcomers experience organisations as a process of readjustment. As seasoned newcomers bring in quite specific concepts of organisational life their socialisation is a struggle between letting go and relearning. Some of their practices and customs were applicable, while others were not.

After they entered the company newcomers engaged into finding out what knowledge is fitting and what they would need to readjust. Even though job descriptions are similar there are always nuances in the way they are actually executed. Newcomers had to engage in the ‘Cranetec way’ of doing things.

“I mean, I know a lot from my former job, but still a lot of things are handled differently.” (Koch)

Newcomers therefore looked for deviations to what they already know about how their job is executed. What did not match was identified as being firm specific and that’s something you don’t know in the beginning (Wagner). Readjustment is about learning what is different. Being an engineer in company XY differs from being an engineer at Cranetec.

“When I started working here I kind of had to reset myself. (…) You have to check what you can actually use from your repertoire of experience, what more you need now. Are there parallels? Can I use my prior knowledge?” (Schulz)

Interviewees ‘checked’ what was alike and what was different and gave thick description of their learning and adjustment experience. They are no blank pages when they come to Cranetec, but what is written on them may not be readable now. Their onboarding does not start in the primordial soup of their occupation. Still seasoned newcomers had to face that they would need to engage in learning and to a certain extent adjusting to the ‘Cranetec world’.

“Otherwise you walk through the company with your knowledge from your former company and think you know how it’s working but then you notice it doesn’t fit.” (Koch)

Seasoned newcomers may know a lot, but they have to be very careful not to think that this means they are done. The extent of learning in a standardised way may be limited, but learning the ‘firm specific way’ only happens through understanding what is in their colleagues’ heads. Newcomers have to get access to their co-workers experiences. Due to the

(27)

27 one-sided dependency a power relation establishes which is not based on hierarchical differences, but informal attributions between ‘the wise mentor’ and the ‘new kid’, co-workers hold the position of controlling knowledge exchange and thereby determine the content of newcomer socialisation.

Knowledge is shared on the interactional level. However, there is no objective ‘Cranetec way’ of doing things ‘out there’. Veteran insiders, who have incorporated the firm specific practices and procedures, teach their mentees their interpretation of how things are done. Newcomers themselves will make sense of this individually. Adjustment then means finding common ground in individual sense-making.

4.2. Newcomers’ Dependence on Gatekeepers

4.2.1. SEEKING TO FIT IN

It was a widely shared conception throughout the interviews that learning the nuances that make the work the ‘Cranetec way’ cannot be learned through standardised training on technical skills alone. From the insights of the former section concerning how adjustment occurs, it can be stated: Co-workers control knowledge exchange in the socialisation of newcomers. This control is exerted in two ways: (1) co-workers regulate the knowledge flow and (2) discipline newcomers for violations of this control.

As it is their personal knowledge newcomers are seeking, co-workers decide on what to share and more importantly what not to share with the alien newcomer. While general ideas and experiences of success are willingly shared with strangers, co-workers may restrain from telling newcomers about occasions of failure and discomfort which are as important for the learning experience.

Newcomers were encouraged to find out what knowledge they were lacking and to fill these gaps by being pro-active in their socialisation and seek insider knowledge.

“You are responsible for yourself. Nobody prepares everything for you. You yourself have to become active. If you don’t ask you don’t get the information.” (Fischer)

Yet it may be hard to ask about things that one does not know yet. It can be questioned whether newcomers are aware of the right questions to ask. Therefore they need to rely on co-workers willingness to share knowledge beyond their questioning.

(28)

28 Learning the ropes was highly based on the interactions and less on formal learning.

“Most interesting during the first weeks was less learning the technical facts but that colleagues told us about their projects in the past and the wild years at Cranetec when everything started here and how they experienced that. And then everybody has a tip for what to do and what to leave.” (Meyer)

Learning the ropes is informal. Gaining access to insiders’ experiences occurs prmarily on a personal level as part of getting to know the opposite.

“I’m a notorious questioner. Sometimes I asked the same questions several times, but I always felt welcome and never got the feeling that I was a burden.” (Schäfer)

The willingness to share information and experiences produces a climate for adjustment. The perception of a culture for knowledge exchange was valued a lot because people knew they were dependent on getting access to ‘insider knowledge’ to become established members of the organisation.

“It was important to me that the culture how knowledge is transferred, how they share their expertise and exchange experiences with co-workers was as open“

(Wagner)

But not only are newcomers dependent on their colleagues to answer their specific questions, but on their willingness to share their work experiences without holding relevant information back. It cannot be taken for granted that just because a newcomer is ‘proactive’ and is seeking information, the sought information is provided. Co-workers have the power to control firm specific knowledge and thereby enable or restrain the newcomer’s success in adjusting to the new setting and bringing in their own expertise as they become aware of potential for optimisation.

Firm specific knowledge and ‘ways to handle things’ are negotiated between the newcomer and the peer group – his or her colleagues. Socialisation occurs in interaction.

„You adjust a lot just by interacting with people on a regular basis. Especially in my job, where I have contact to many different departments. You just grow into the culture.“ (Schäfer)

(29)

29 Newcomers can only compare what ‘was’ and what ‘is’ and make sense of it by building relationships to co-workers and depending on their willingness to exchange vital information they would need to do their job the way it will be expected of them down the road.

Schäfer also indicates that relevant knowledge does not only come from co-workers of the same department, but that ‘growing into the culture’ is related to knowing the company beyond the department’s fence. Therefore new hires used relevant co-workers cross-functionally as role models, which they can observe, communicate and interact with so they would understand the big picture.

“I think it’s good that the onboarding phase is so long. This way one can learn more from seasoned co-workers and how the ‘Cranetec world’ functions so one can get a feeling for the stable.” (Koch)

Note Koch’s interest is in discovering how the ‘Cranetec world’ functions, rather than the more technical aspects of the new job. It indicates that some newcomers’ wish to become adjusted and move quickly from being an outsider to insider. Newcomers are aware that only co-workers can provide the sought knowledge. The newcomer cannot influence the pace they learn but depend on their co-workers availability. Newcomers are put in a relationship of dependency.

‘There was this informal concept that you always had somebody an arm-length from you, something like a mentor with whom you could talk about these specific things. In my case that was theoretically to be Paul, but practically he was on business trips a lot and never there. That was a bit difficult.” (Meyer)

Not everyone was pleased with being dependent on co-workers to gain these insights. Some newcomers were frustrated due to the lack of formalised guidance they were given. It occurred to them that they were very dependent on their colleagues’ knowledge and willingness to share information at all times. The dependence of gaining relevant knowledge through colleagues is perceived as being pleasant only to a certain extent.

“You had to know whom to ask if you needed some information. I was definitely missing some documentation where you can check things for yourself and you don’t need to know whom to ask.” (Weber)

(30)

30 Newcomers lose autonomy in their socialisation and the power to decide upon when and what to learn. Also, by asking insiders for information and explanation newcomers cannot hide their deficits. Socialisation thereby becomes a transparent process. It puts emphasis on the informal power relation between the insider, who possesses the information sought by the newcomer, who, despite his corpus of experience, is inferior.

Adjustment to a context as Cranetec which showed how willingly knowledge and experience was shared with newcomers did not seem to be a big deal to newcomers who already knew the basics of their job. It shows that socialisation is only to a minor extent about learning the actual job. However, newcomers cannot make accounts on the knowledge that was not shared by insiders. Learning about the ‘Cranetec world’ involved both newcomers and insiders to negotiate a climate of interaction.

“A lot of the knowledge is in people’s heads, because a lot of the employees have been here for a long time and they know then what they’ve got to do.” (Weber)

As a lot of the company knowledge is tacit knowledge it is difficult for newcomers to specifically ask for it. Newcomers have to rely on their co-workers’ ability to verbalise relevant knowledge. By following insiders around and asking questions they get a feeling for how the job is done at Cranetec. By doing the job themselves at early stages in their onboarding they actually experience what cannot just be explained and showed. Despite the fact that a formal onboarding process exists, employees do not feel that they learn until they are embedded in informal relationships with their colleagues and thrown into experiencing the job in cooperation with their colleagues. The ‘Cranetec way’ is mediated by insiders who reproduce ‘their way’ in their interaction with newcomers. Getting a newcomer on board cannot happen in isolation.

Seasoned newcomers noticed that not all doors are open for them to pass as they please. While insiders were very gracious to show newcomers how everything is, this was mainly intended to secure the status quo and make newcomers adjust and fit in.

It is important to keep in mind that experienced newcomers are no blank pages. Socialisation occurs referring to ‘before’. In the beginning newcomers focused on learning how things are in the company, but sooner or later newcomers experienced a tension between how things ‘are’ and how they ‘could be’, based on contrasting now and before. Through the stories newcomers told me about these occasions in their onboarding, they showed how they made

(31)

31 sense of deviances between their prior experience and the new status quo through interaction with organisational insiders. The socialisation of seasoned newcomers is defined by a tension between adjustment, as learning and adapting to the firm specific way and seeking inclusion, and standing out by shaping the new context.

4.2.2. ATTEMPTS TO STAND OUT

Whenever newcomers are confronted with ‘newness’ or deviations in the new setting, sense-making occurs as a function of prior impressions. In my interviews I asked newcomers whether they sometimes had the feeling that they know better how to handle things due to their prior experience. Interviewees gave different accounts on that depending on their judgement of the ‘betterness’ of their experience in relation to the ‘Cranetec way’.

There were newcomers who preferred to adjust themselves to the new setting without pushing for change. Wagner, for example, told his co-workers about differences between his experience and the approach taken at Cranetec. Newcomers voice distinctions between their prior experience and status quo in interactions. Through their co-workers reaction and reasoning in favour of the status quo, newcomers make sense of and evaluate the current situation. Depending on whether newcomers perceive their co-workers reasoning as convincing, newcomers will adapt to the status quo.

“Sometimes I mentioned that at my former job we did it like this or that but usually I came to the conclusion that here they have better solutions. (…) I prefer to respect how far people came already and to transfer this knowledge to Germany.” (Wagner)

While his first sentence showed signs of negotiating, which way was the better one, he ended with stating that he prefers to transfer the knowledge he gained in Austria, without alterations to Germany, due to his respect for their solutions not their superiority. This implies that he was not willing to bring himself in as much as others were and stopped where his colleagues guarded status quo.

There is a great risk of intimidating newcomers to not contribute openly with their own ideas and rather burry them as good memories. The potential for innovation may get lost due to insiders reluctance to do more than necessary. Since peers control knowledge exchange, they may keep the gates for insider knowledge to be transferred to newcomers wide open, while stopping external knowledge to pass into the organisation and thereby changing ‘their way’.

Standing out or fitting in